D N VENKATARAYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, in these petitions, have challenged the order dated 23-3-1992 passed by the second respondent, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-K , confirming the order dated 22-4-1989 passed by the third respondent, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G , declaring the sale of the lands bearing survey No. 140 measuring 2 acres, 16 guntas, survey No. 141 measuring 2 acres, 2 guntas, survey No. 142 measuring 2 acres, 18 guntas and survey No. 48/11 measuring 2 acres, situated at champalli village, ronur hobli. Srinivasapura taluk, kolar district, as null and void and directing that the possession of the said lands should be recovered from the petitioners and handed over to respondents 4 to 7.

(2.) SRI u. l. narayana rao, learned senior counsel appearing along with Sri g. r. lakshmipathi reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, made three submissions in support of his contentions that the order impugned are totally illegal and they are liable to be quashed. Firstly, he submitted that the lands in question are not granted lands as defined under Section 3 (1xb) of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), as the said lands were not granted in favour of persons belonging to scheduled caste. Elaborating his argument, he submitted that the original grantees of the lands in question were not persons belonging to scheduled caste and therefore the lands in question are not granted lands. Secondly, he submitted that when there is a discrepancy between the terms of the grant and the law governing the grant in view of the Provisions contained in the government grants Act, the terms provided in the order of grant would prevail over the law governing the grant made by the state; and the terms provided in the grant order prohibited alienation of the lands in question only for a period of 20 years from the date of the grant and since the lands in question were sold after the expiry of the period fixed in the grant Order, there is no violation of the terms of the grant and therefore the Provisions of the act are not applicable. Thirdly, he submitted that the petitioners have perfected their title by adverse possession in respect of the lands in question and therefore the lands in question are not governed by the Provisions of the act.

(3.) SRI ravivarma kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7, and Sri m. Siddagangaiah, learned high court government pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, supported the orders impugned in the writ petition. They submitted that the land bearing survey No. 140 measuring 2 acres, 16 guntas was originally granted to one ramanna, the father of the 4th respondent; the land measuring 2 acres, 2 guntas in survey No. 121 was granted to one late narayanappa, the father of the 5th respondent; the land measuring 2 acres, 18 guntas was granted to one late munivenkatappa, the father of the 6th respondent, on 17-8-1941; and the land measuring 2 acres in survey No. 48/11 was granted in favour of one late hanumappa, the father of the 7th respondent, and that the saguvali chits issued to all the original grantees provided a condition of non-alienation clause in respect of the said lands for ever and the said condition was incorporated in view of Rule 43 (8) of the rules framed by the state in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 233 of the Mysore land revenue code. They further submitted that the rules were published by means of notification dated 27-6-1938 in No. R. 5682-l. r. 389-37. 3 and the said rules provided for grant of land to persons belonging to depressed classes which include adikarnatakas and admittedly, the original grantees are adikarnatakas by caste and therefore it is not permissible for the petitioners to challenge the status of the original grantees as persons belonging to scheduled caste; and the presidential notification issued under article 341 of the Constitution of India specifically notifies the persons belonging to adikarnataka as scheduled castes; and that there is no truth in the claim made by the petitioners that the terms of the saguvali chit issued provided for alienation of the granted lands only for a period of 20 years in respect of survey nos. 140, 141 and 142 and 10 years in respect of survey No. 48/11, and as a matter of fact, in the original saguvali chits issued to the grantees, there was a permanent non-alienation clause and the document produced before this court providing that the alienation is for a limited period, as stated above, has been tampered with. They seriously disputed that the original grant orders prohibited alienation of the granted lands only for a limited period, as stated above; and at any event of the matter, since the rules governing the grant prohibit the alienation of the lands in question permanently, the rules cover the field and the same are binding on the parties. In so far as the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they have perfected their title by adverse possession is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the grants in question were free grants and further the terms of the grant would make it clear that the grants were hedged with various conditions and therefore they were not absolute grants made in favour of the grantees where the title to the lands in question passed absolutely in favour of the grantees. They also submitted that admittedly the lands in question were granted to persons belonging to depressed classes and under the circumstances, when the Rule governing the grant of the lands in question provided that the lands in question should not be alienated permanently, the intention of the state was to retain the title in itself and not to part with the same to the grantees and what is parted to the grantees is only the right to enjoy the lands in question for ever, subject to the condition that they do not violate the conditions of the grants. They further submitted that none of the three submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was raised before the original authority and therefore the petitioners should not be permitted to raise the same before this court. They further submitted that the plea raised in the pleading will not be sufficient to support the plea of adverse possession in law as crucial facts have not been pleaded and there is not even an iota of evidence in support of the said plea; and even with regard to the status of the original grantees, there was no plea put forth by the petitioners before the original authority that the original grantees are not persons belonging to scheduled caste.